Part II: ... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!

[John Doe II]

The crater:
After having analysed the eyewitness’ accounts of the last minutes of UA 93 in “…and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye” it’s time now to have a closer look at the crater.
I guess what most of us have seen of the crater are photos like this:


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua93/3.shtml

Unfortunately there are only a very few photos of the crater taken.
But maybe it could be interesting to have a look at the crater from the bird perspective!
There are only a handful on the net. Here you go:


(photo taken on September 22, 2001) (photo taken on September 22, 2001)

http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm



http://home.alamedanet.net/~vajra/sept11/UA93.htm


And here is a satellite perspective of the crash area.


http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm

Just take your time and try to figure out from which direction the plane crashed into this crater.

According to the official flight path UA 93 came from the west, northwest before crashing into the ground.

Now let’s have a look at the map:


http://wtc2001ny.tripod.com/shanksville-map.html
(Work by Zeitmaschine!)

Here we can clearly see what btw many eyewitnesses observed: the plane overflew the forest before crashing.
But I’m afraid it’s really hard to believe that a plane crossing the forest created the crater:
- There are no traces of UA 93’s wings cutting down trees. Maybe the mother of all walls exists. Maybe the Penta-Lawn exists but I really think we don’t need to discuss if the trees in Shanksville are airplane-resistant…
- Also the form of the crater does indicate in no way that a plane came from the direction of the trees. There are no traces of the crashing plane outside the crater one would expect in the case of a crash.
See for a comparison a picture of the crash of a Boeing 727 in Florida in July 2002:


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/fdx1478/2.shtml
(Thanks to Killtown!)

The only imaginable explanation why the crash of UA 93 didn’t leave any sort of traces like this is that the plane crashed at an angle of 90°. This will be discussed below.


Is it perhaps possible that the plane coming from the west overflew the forest and made a 90° turn so that at the very moment of the crash it was flying south?
Hardly possible. No eyewitness mentioned this behaviour. Moreover many eyewitnesses stated that the crash happened right after the plane had been covered by the trees from eye sight (see below).
And several eyewitnesses (Bob Blair, Nevil Lambert, Eric Peterson and Tim Thornsberg) observed that the plane rolled on its back while overflying the forest it is rather hard to see how the plane could have made a turn around in this condition.


Now let’s once again have a close look at the crater:
Check out this video:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/

Or simply have a look at this photo:


http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/new/1.htm



http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html


THE ANGLE:
At what angle has the plane that created this crater crashed into the ground?
It seems to be perfectly clear that the plane can only have crashed in an angle of 90°. As already mentioned above this seems to be also the only explanation to why the crashing plane left no traces outside the crater. It also seems to correspond to the theory of the “Joint Inquiry” and the “Independent Commission” that the hijackers decided to crash the plane into the ground on purpose.
Let me just point out here that this official explanation differs a lot from what actually family members and officials have heard on the CVR because none heard any decision of the hijackers to crash the plane. For details:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179

Eyewitnesses:
Now let’s listen to the eyewitnesses and see if it is theoretically possible that the plane that they saw from the west crashed at an angle of 90° into the ground!

First we’ll figure out the altitude of the plane when it crossed the forest:
Eric Peterson (Lambertsville, about two miles) saw the plane at 300 feet. (US World & News, 10/29/01)
Nevin Lambert (less than half mile) was afraid because “It looked like it was coming right to my house” (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/04) implying that the plane was very low.
And Lee Purbaugh being only 300 yards away from the crash site sees the plane at an altitude of 40 or 50 feet.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b; Independent, 8/13/02)
Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Wrong simulation:
Already here we see that eg the following simulation of the crash shown on German television is simply wrong:


http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html

First the altitude of the plane is simply wrong. Second a plane descending at an angle of approximately 45° would clearly have cut down trees with its wings and would have left traces from its approach before the crater.

The argument:
Just let’s assume for the sack of the argument that the plane was at the moment before heading down at an altitude of the very, very unrealistic 300 feet.
At this altitude the plane was still flying horizontally as eyewitnesses stated.
The official speed at the moment of the crash was 580 mph.
This would imply that the complete turn of the plane from the horizontal to the vertical took a third of a second.
Hmm.
So, maybe we should be more generous and not stick too much to the official speed:
If the plane flew 200 mph the nosediving to the complete 90° would have taken one second.
If the plane flew 400 mph it would have taken only half a second.

All in al I guess it’s rather fair to say that even with very conservative assumptions (altitude and speed) it is simply impossible that the plane would have made a turn downwards of 90°. And we didn’t even consider the momentum of the weight and the speed that would push the plane forward for a moment in the horizontal even if the pilot has gone for a nosedive. And we didn’t even talk of the length of the plane (155 feet) making it even more difficult that the nose of the plane managed the 90° turn before hitting the ground already (remember that the biggest piece in and around the crater was 2 feet long). And we didn’t even hint so far at the fact that the wings of the plane don’t point to the north and the south as one would expect of a plane approaching from the west but they point towards the forest (west) and the east.
Hmm and hmm again.


A last possible explanation?
There seems only one possible explanation to solve the problem we face with UA 93 descending from the west and the crater that couldn’t have been created by a plane coming from the west. But this solution contradicts the official flight path:

The U-turn: Maybe the plane from the west crossed the trees and passed the crash site and continued to fly east. Then it did a 180° turn and came back to the crash site from the east.

This assumption has several big problems:
- The observation of several eyewitnesses. They saw the plane crossing the trees and then “within seconds” it crashed or their description clearly implies that the crash happened right after the plane vanishing from view behind the trees. But a Boeing that would have made a complete 180°-turn as the explanation suggests would clearly have needed quite a bit of time (one minute?). It’s certainly rather save to believe that all theses eyewitnesses wouldn’t have mistaken something like a minute with “a second”.

Terry Butler: (Stoystown)
“He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees.”
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blur_in_the_sky__th.shtml

Rob Kimmel (Stoystown):
“Rob Kimmel, a truck driver, said he was in his garage in Stoystown when he saw the jet bank hard to the right, only 100 or 200 feet off the ground as it crested a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom," Mr. Kimmel said.
Within seconds , Mr. Butler and Mr. Kimmel said, they felt the concussion of the crash.”
(New York Times, 9/14/01)

Eric Peterson: (Lambertsville):
“The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.
Then Peterson said he saw a fireball , heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01)

Paula Pluta: (Lambertsville Road) :
“She said she went to her porch and saw the plane dip sharply at a 60 degree or 70 degree angle as it flew southward and fall to the earth behind a line of trees in this area of cornfields and rolling hills. A fireball ballooned as high as 100 feet above the tree line, she said.”
(New York Times, 9/12/01)

Bob Blair: (Stoystown):
“’I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,’ said Blair.”
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

- The absence of eyewitnesses east of the crash site. Not a single eyewitness saw the plane continuing its flight east after the crash site. In order to manage a complete 180° turn the Boeing certainly needed quite a while. And certainly a plane flying at an altitude of a few hundred feet would have stood out! In the west of the crash site we can easily track the flight path of UA 93 due to the accounts of many eyewitnesses but in the east we completely loose it!?
Only one eyewitness could maybe be presented to support the U-turn-theory:

- In order to manage to create a 90° angle at the crash site the plane must have gained quite an altitude. If it would have done so certainly all our eyewitnesses being west of the crash site would have seen the plane again when it came back after its U-turn and approaching the crash site. But there is not a single eyewitness.

- This theory would still not be able to explain the raining debris. If anybody wants to propose a shoot down as a logical explanation then the U-turn-theory gets even stranger. Not only would there have been a curious lack of eyewitnesses seeing the plane turning around 180° (having to fly all in all at least 17 miles after having crossed the crash site) but also nobody saw neither a second plane (even people seeing the white plane never mention having seen UA 93!) nor the shoot down.
But if a shoot down is unlikely then how can we account for the raining debris?
(In part I of “… and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye” it has been shown that the eyewitnesses and also the wind direction that could be seen on the video completely contradict the official explanation that the wind blew the debris on Indian Lake and till New Baltimore (eight miles away)).

But if the U-turn-theory is of no help explaining the crater how else can it be explained?
Can we assume another plane coming from the east crashing into the ground? Hardly. We would have the simple problem that the “wrong” plane is in the crater and we would need to explain how UA 93 could have completely vanished! And for achieving the 90° hit into the ground the plane would have needed a certain altitude and most likely would have been seen from the eyewitnesses from the west.
So apparently there simply is no explanation possible and I find it rather hard to believe tat all eyewitnesses didn’t say the truth (this is too much of a conspiracy for me and contrary to some officials the eyewitnesses don’t have a motive).
Therefore we can conclude:

Not only can we state that there was a strange encounter between the plane from the west and the white jet from the east at the moment of the crash but whatever has created the crater is not the same airplane that all the eyewitnesses have seen descending from the west. The crater can’t have been created by UA 93. And most likely no plane at all can have created this crater.

This surprising conclusion doesn’t contradict any eyewitness account of the crater btw. Not a single eyewitness was sure that there was a plane in the crater. On the contrary people said in disbelieve:

Homer Barron: " It didn't look like a plane crash because there was nothing that looked like a plane”.
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)

Carol Delano: “ If they hadn’t told us a plane had wrecked, you wouldn’t have known. It looked like it hit and disintegrated”.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

"We haven't seen anything bigger than a phone book, certainly nothing that would resemble a part of a plane," said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.
(Cox, 9/12/01 b)

Lee Purbaugh: “There was nothing there. Everything was shredded.”
(Among the Heroes, 299)

Nick Tweardy: “ We couldn’t tell what we were looking at. There’s just a huge crater in the woods. ”
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html

Nina Lensbouer: "But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/12/01 b)

Rick King: “ Never in my wildest dreams did I think half the plane was down there. ”
(Among the Heroes, 302)


And, well, have a look for yourself:


http://hometown.aol.de/rkinet/html/shanksville.html

The only question remaining is:
If the plane from the west that officially is considered to have been UA 93 didn’t create the crater where did it go and what did create this crater instead?